Reading Plus
InSight

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:

Reading Plus provides a web-based computerized-adaptive assessment that measures three dimensions essential to successful independent silent reading: capacity, fluency, and motivation. In addition to assessing comprehension and vocabulary (capacity), it includes measures of comprehension-based silent reading rate (fluency) and motivation for reading. The comprehension and vocabulary components of the assessment are based on an IRT framework. The difficulty of items presented to students during the assessment is adjusted dynamically based on ongoing student performance. The assessment may be used with all students or with specific groups of students who have been identified as at risk of academic failure and may be individually or group administered. The initial administration of the assessment provides baseline performance measures, while subsequent administrations (mid-term and end-of-term) provide progress benchmarking. Students can complete the assessment on computers or tablets using a keyboard, mouse, or touch screen. Students typically require 30-40 minutes to complete the assessment. If students log out before completing the assessment, they are bookmarked so that they can later continue from where they left off. The assessment automatically scores and reports each student’s academic performance in terms of comprehension level, vocabulary level, and comprehension-based silent reading rate (in words per minute). These sub-scores are combined to provide the student’s overall reading Proficiency Index. Comprehension and Vocabulary Levels as well as the Reading Proficiency Index are reported on a grade-level scale. The assessment also measures students’ self-reported motivation for reading across several motivation domains. Summary reports become available as soon as the student completes the assessment. If the Reading Plus instructional program has also been purchased, the assessment determines initial placement and an individualized instructional path within the various program components.

The tool is intended for use with the following grade(s).

Preschool / Pre - kindergarten
Kindergarten
First grade
Second grade
Third grade
Fourth grade
Fifth grade
Sixth grade
Seventh grade
Eighth grade
Ninth grade
Tenth grade
Eleventh grade
Twelfth grade

The tool is intended for use with the following age(s).

0-4 years old
5 years old
6 years old
7 years old
8 years old
9 years old
10 years old
11 years old
12 years old
13 years old
14 years old
15 years old
16 years old
17 years old
18 years old

The tool is intended for use with the following student populations.

Students in general education
Students with disabilities
English language learners

ACADEMIC ONLY: What skills does the tool screen?

Reading

Phonological processing:

RAN
Memory
Awareness
Letter sound correspondence
Phonics
Structural analysis

Word ID

Accuracy
Speed

Nonword

Accuracy
Speed

Spelling

Accuracy
Speed

Passage

Accuracy
Speed

Reading comprehension:

Multiple choice questions
Cloze
Constructed Response
Retell
Maze
Sentence verification
Other (please describe):

Speed is defined as "comprehension-based silent reading rate" and is measured in words per minute (wpm).

Listening comprehension:

Multiple choice questions
Cloze
Constructed Response
Retell
Maze
Sentence verification
Vocabulary
Expressive
Receptive

Mathematics

Global Indicator of Math Competence

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Early Numeracy

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Mathematics Concepts

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Mathematics Computation

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Mathematic Application

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Fractions/Decimals

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Algebra

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Geometry

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Other (please describe):

Please describe specific domain, skills or subtests:

Motivation: InSight also includes a motivational inventory that measures students’ self-reported reading confidence and reading interest, as well as self-improvement belief. The inventory results are reported separately and are not part of academic scoring for screening, placement, or progress.  Vocabulary: InSight includes an adaptive vocabulary assessment component that is based on a proprietary general academic vocabulary list consisting of words found in elementary through high school level texts and are shared across subject areas—words that are important for comprehending academic texts successfully. The vocabulary component is not administered orally and is not considered a listening comprehension skill.   Reading Proficiency Index: Comprehension level, vocabulary level, and comprehension-based silent reading rate are combined to create a composite score of the student’s overall reading proficiency, reported as the student’s Proficiency Index.

BEHAVIOR ONLY: Which category of behaviors does your tool target?

Internalizing
Externalizing
Internalizing and Externalizing

BEHAVIOR ONLY: Please identify which broad domain(s)/construct(s) are measured by your tool and define each sub-domain or sub-construct.

Acquisition and Cost Information

Administration

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What type of administrator is your tool designed for?

General education teacher
Special education teacher
Parent
Child
External observer
Other

If other, please specify:

What is the administration setting?

Direct observation
Rating scale
Checklist
Performance measure
Questionnaire
Direct: Computerized
One-to-one
Other

If other, please specify:

Does the tool require technology?

Yes

If yes, what technology is required to implement your tool? (Select all that apply)

Computer or tablet
Internet connection
Other technology (please specify)

If your program requires additional technology not listed above, please describe the required technology and the extent to which it is combined with teacher small-group instruction/intervention:

Reading Plus does not have any additional technology requirements, but it does offer integrations via Clever, ClassLink, and via SAML if districts are using those solutions.

What is the administration context?

Individual
Small group   If small group, n=
Large group   If large group, n=
Computer-administered
Other

If other, please specify:

InSight administration is flexible and can be customized based on available technology and the needs of students.

ACADEMIC ONLY: What are the discontinue rules?

No discontinue rules provided
Basals
Ceilings
Other

If other, please specify:

Are norms available?

Yes

Are benchmarks available?

Yes

If yes, how many benchmarks per year?

3

If yes, for which months are benchmarks available?

No limitations, but recommendations are provided; initial (fall), mid-term (winter), and end-of-term (spring)

BEHAVIOR ONLY: Can students be rated concurrently by one administrator?

If yes, how many students can be rated concurrently?

Training & Scoring

Training

Is training for the administrator required?

Yes

Describe the time required for administrator training, if applicable:

Less than 1 hour of training

Please describe the minimum qualifications an administrator must possess.

No minimum qualifications

Are training manuals and materials available?

Yes

Are training manuals/materials field-tested?

Yes

Are training manuals/materials included in cost of tools?

Yes

If No, please describe training costs:

Can users obtain ongoing professional and technical support?

Yes

If Yes, please describe how users can obtain support:

A comprehensive system of support is available for educators who use Reading Plus. The Reading Plus Learn Site is the main portal for online video and webinar training, written resources, and additional online and offline teaching tools. Reading Plus Support is available via live chat, email, and phone to assist with any additional questions educators may have.

Scoring

How are scores calculated?

Manually (by hand)
Automatically (computer-scored)
Other

If other, please specify:

Do you provide basis for calculating performance level scores?

No

What is the basis for calculating performance level and percentile scores?

Age norms
Grade norms
Classwide norms
Schoolwide norms
Stanines
Normal curve equivalents

What types of performance level scores are available?

Raw score
Standard score
Percentile score
Grade equivalents
IRT-based score
Age equivalents
Stanines
Normal curve equivalents
Developmental benchmarks
Developmental cut points
Equated
Probability
Lexile score
Error analysis
Composite scores
Subscale/subtest scores
Other

If other, please specify:

Text Lexile Range, Instructional Reading Level, Instructional Vocabulary Level, Visual Skills Instructional Level *Percentile score available for comprehension-based silent reading rate **Grade-level score based on IRT scoring ***A Reading Proficiency Index (composite score) is provided on a grade level scale. Sub-scores are also provided in the following areas: Comprehension Grade Level, Vocabulary Grade Level, Comprehension-based Silent Reading Rate (in words per minute), and Reading Motivation (e.g., self-improvement belief, confidence, interest).

Does your tool include decision rules?

No

If yes, please describe.

Can you provide evidence in support of multiple decision rules?

No

If yes, please describe.

Please describe the scoring structure. Provide relevant details such as the scoring format, the number of items overall, the number of items per subscale, what the cluster/composite score comprises, and how raw scores are calculated.

Students complete 20 motivation inventory items, 40 vocabulary items, and 5 comprehension testlets with 5 questions each. A student’s overall grade-level Reading Proficiency Index (composite score) is a composite measure based on the Comprehension and Vocabulary grade-level sub-scores in conjunction with the Comprehension-Based Silent Reading Rate measure (words per minute). The assessment calculates an ability estimate based on the calibrated difficulty of the vocabulary items and comprehension testlets and items that were presented to the student, and the student’s performance on these items. Reading Plus uses an IRT-based two-parameter logistic response model to calculate scores. The grade-level scale scores are linear transformations of the Rasch model logit scores. Comprehension-based silent reading rates are calculated based on a student’s reading rate while reading the various testlets, taking into consideration performance on the comprehension items that follow.

Describe the tool’s approach to screening, samples (if applicable), and/or test format, including steps taken to ensure that it is appropriate for use with culturally and linguistically diverse populations and students with disabilities.

To ensure content validity and appropriateness, passages and items were initially developed in collaboration with experts in content creation, literacy, and curriculum. Content rubrics are based on multiple text metrics (including vocabulary, The Lexile® Framework for Reading, mean log word frequency, average sentence length), state standards for academic content, and national guidelines for text complexity, such as the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Assessment items and passages undergo extensive pilot testing with hundreds of thousands of students (with diverse demographic characteristics and literacy levels) from all regions of the United States. InSight’s adaptive logic allows for students to be assessed across the full range of item difficulty based on their ongoing performance, regardless of their starting level. The initial starting point is adjusted automatically for English Language Learners and Special Education students.

Classification Accuracy & Cross-Validation Summary

Grade	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Classification Accuracy Fall
Classification Accuracy Winter
Classification Accuracy Spring

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data unavailable

^dDisaggregated data available

Smarter Balanced English Language Arts Assessment

Classification Accuracy

Describe the criterion (outcome) measure(s) including the degree to which it/they is/are independent from the screening measure.

The criterion measure used in this classification accuracy analysis was the Smarter Balanced English-Language Arts (ELA) scores from spring 2017 (SBAC; Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, 2017). The Smarter Balanced ELA assessment was used by 13 states during the 2016-17 school year as their statewide assessment for grades 3-8 as required by the federal Every Student Succeeds Act. Technical documentation detailing the development and design of Smarter Balanced ELA is available on the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium website. The Reading Plus screening assessment is a completely independent measure from the Smarter Balanced ELA assessment. Its content is created, field tested, and reviewed by Reading Plus guided by an advisory panel. Although the Reading Plus assessment was designed independently, it used similar guidelines and standards as other literacy assessments (e.g., Common Core State Standards (CCSS), computerized adaptive testing (CAT) methodology, and educational testing standards). A Technical Brief (https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/2086007/PDFs/National/InSight_Three-Assessments-In-One_20200414.pdf) provides additional information about the uses and development of the Reading Plus assessment.

Describe when screening and criterion measures were administered and provide a justification for why the method(s) you chose (concurrent and/or predictive) is/are appropriate for your tool.

Describe how the classification analyses were performed and cut-points determined. Describe how the cut points align with students at-risk. Please indicate which groups were contrasted in your analyses (e.g., low risk students versus high risk students, low risk students versus moderate risk students).

Cut points are based on the Reading Plus overall reading Proficiency Index which is a weighted, composite score that combines vocabulary, comprehension and reading rate sub-scores on a continuous grade-level scale that ranges from 0.5 (unable to interact successfully with first grade-level content to 13.5 (successful with college- and career-ready content). The cut-points for the classification accuracy analyses are primarily based on previous analysis conducted by Reading Plus. Since the 2013-14 school year, Reading Plus has analyzed the assessment and instructional program data of hundreds of thousands of students across all five regions and nine divisions of the United States. This analysis has enabled Reading Plus to profile and classify students’ overall reading proficiency on a grade-level scale that ranges from 0.5 to 13.5. The Reading Plus assessment cut-points for intensive intervention are described below, and show that students in need of intensive intervention typically have overall reading proficiency scores that are 3-4 levels below grade in the fall and 2-3 levels below grade in the spring. Fall: • Grade 3: Students cannot interact consistently with Grade 1 level vocabulary and reading comprehension content (0.5). • Grade 4: Students have beginning overall reading proficiency with Grade 1 level content (1.0). • Grade 5: Students have solid overall reading proficiency with Grade 1 level content and beginning proficiency with Grade 2 level content (2.0). • Grade 6: Students have moderate overall reading proficiency with Grade 2 level content (2.5). • Grade 7: Students have moderate overall reading proficiency with Grade 3 level content (3.5). • Grade 8: Students have moderate overall reading proficiency with Grade 3 level content (4.5). Spring: • Grade 3: Students have beginning overall reading proficiency with Grade 1 level content (1.0). • Grade 4: Students have solid overall reading proficiency with Grade 2 level content and beginning proficiency with Grade 3 level content (3.0). • Grade 5: Students have moderate overall reading proficiency with Grade 3 level content (3.5). • Grade 6: Students have solid overall reading proficiency with Grade 3 level content and beginning proficiency with Grade 4 level content (4.0). • Grade 7: Students have moderate overall reading proficiency with Grade 4 level content (4.5). • Grade 8: Students have solid overall reading proficiency with Grade 4 level content and beginning proficiency with Grade 5 level content (5.0).

Were the children in the study/studies involved in an intervention in addition to typical classroom instruction between the screening measure and outcome assessment?

Yes

If yes, please describe the intervention, what children received the intervention, and how they were chosen.

The districts that participated in this study all used the Reading Plus instructional intervention program to various degrees in the 2016-17 school year. We do not have information, however, regarding the use of other intervention programs in the participating districts.

Cross-Validation

Has a cross-validation study been conducted?

No

If yes,

Describe the criterion (outcome) measure(s) including the degree to which it/they is/are independent from the screening measure.

Describe when screening and criterion measures were administered and provide a justification for why the method(s) you chose (concurrent and/or predictive) is/are appropriate for your tool.

Describe how the cross-validation analyses were performed and cut-points determined. Describe how the cut points align with students at-risk. Please indicate which groups were contrasted in your analyses (e.g., low risk students versus high risk students, low risk students versus moderate risk students).

Were the children in the study/studies involved in an intervention in addition to typical classroom instruction between the screening measure and outcome assessment?

If yes, please describe the intervention, what children received the intervention, and how they were chosen.

Classification Accuracy - Fall

Classification Accuracy - Spring

Reliability

Grade	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Rating

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data unavailable

^dDisaggregated data available

*Offer a justification for each type of reliability reported, given the type and purpose of the tool.

a. Marginal Reliability: The Reading Plus assessment includes a large bank of test items designed to evaluate a student’s vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension level relative to their grade level. In an IRT-based model, marginal reliability provides an estimate of how well an assessment classifies students in relation to what is measured. Like traditional reliability coefficients, marginal reliability estimates are reported on a scale of 0 to 1. Higher values for marginal reliability indicate that an instrument is more sensitive to individual differences in the ability being measured; e.g., higher-performing students are more likely to achieve higher scores, and vice versa. b. Test-Retest Reliability: The Reading Plus assessment can be administered up to three times per school year and yields several sub scores (vocabulary, comprehension, comprehension-based reading rate, and motivation measures) as well as an overall reading proficiency composite score. Unlike the classic alternate form testing scenario, however, this assessment is an adaptive test with large content pools and with logic designed to avoid the repetition of content on successive administrations. As such, the specific content of each administration differs, as might the difficulty of the items in cases where a student has advanced. Under these circumstances, the calculated reliability coefficients reflect what some have called a “stratified, randomly parallel form reliability” (Green, Bock, Humphreys, Linn, & Reckase, 1984, p. 353). The interval between assessments can vary according to the goals of the administrator; e.g., to evaluate short-term versus full year gains. Under these circumstances, test-retest reliability coefficients are useful as estimates of score stability over these time spans. With this in mind, two test-retest reliability coefficients were calculated for each grade: i. One based on all students who completed two assessments with fewer than 60 days between administrations (actual mean test-retest intervals across grades ranged from 31 to 41 days). ii. Another based on a different sample consisting of all students who completed two assessments separated by at least 180 days (actual mean test-retest intervals across grades ranged from 226 to 251 days).

*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each reliability analysis conducted.

Calculations of marginal and test-retest reliability were calculated using all participating students in 48 states and the District of Columbia who fit the inclusion criteria; i.e., for whom valid scores were available on at least two Reading Plus assessments (a) administered within 60 days of each other or (b) administered more than 180 days apart, during the 2016-2017 school year.

*Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of reliability.

Marginal reliability statistics were calculated separately for both the vocabulary and comprehension components of the assessment using the Winsteps Rasch-Model program (Linacre, 2006). Marginal reliability statistics were calculated separately for students at each grade level. Confidence intervals were also calculated by the Winsteps program (lower bound is the “real” person reliability; upper bound is the “model” person reliability). To evaluate test-retest reliability, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated separately at each grade level for two independent samples (students with two assessments within 60 days, and others with two assessments separated by at least 180 days) using data collected in the Fall of 2016 and Spring of 2017. The 95% confidence intervals around each test-retest correlation coefficient was calculated by (a) using Fisher's z' transformation to convert the coefficients to z' scores, (b) calculating the associated standard errors and 95% confidence intervals for z’, and then (c) converting the z’ score confidence intervals back into regression coefficients.

*In the table(s) below, report the results of the reliability analyses described above (e.g., internal consistency or inter-rater reliability coefficients).

Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

No

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Do you have reliability data that are disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, or other subgroups (e.g., English language learners, students with disabilities)?

No

If yes, fill in data for each subgroup with disaggregated reliability data.

Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

No

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Validity

Grade	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Rating

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data unavailable

^dDisaggregated data available

*Describe each criterion measure used and explain why each measure is appropriate, given the type and purpose of the tool.

The criterion measures used in this analysis were English-Language Arts (ELA) scores from the spring 2017 administration of the Smarter Balanced assessment (SBAC; Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, 2016). This criterion measure is appropriate because: a. SBAC is among the most widely administered assessments in the United States (administered in 13 states plus the US Virgin Islands and the Bureau of Indian Education). b. The ELA portion of the SBAC was developed for the explicit purpose of providing a valid and reliable measure of literacy achievement as outlined in the Common Core State Standards (2010). c. Evidence supporting the validity of the SBAC derives from numerous sources, including evaluations of test content, internal structure, test bias, scoring reliability, and alignment with other measures.

*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each validity analysis conducted.

The sample included all students in grades 3-8 who completed both the SBAC and a valid Reading Plus assessment during the 2016-2017 school year, and who attended school districts that shared SBAC data. This comprised a fall sample of 8,197 students and a spring sample of 6,017 students in school districts located in the New England, West North Central, and Pacific regions of the United States.

*Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity.

Two types of validity were evaluated: a. Concurrent validity was evaluated by calculating Pearson correlation coefficients comparing proficiency scores on the Spring 2017 administration of the Reading Plus InSight assessment with Spring 2017 ELA scaled scores on the SBAC. b. Predictive validity was evaluated by calculating Pearson correlation coefficients comparing proficiency scores on the Fall 2016 administration of the Reading Plus InSight assessment with ELA scaled scores on the Spring 2017 administrations of SBAC. The 95% confidence intervals around each correlation coefficient was calculated by (a) using Fisher's z' transformation to convert the coefficients to z' scores, (b) calculating the associated standard errors and 95% confidence intervals for z’, and then (c) converting the z’ score confidence intervals back into regression coefficients.

*In the table below, report the results of the validity analyses described above (e.g., concurrent or predictive validity, evidence based on response processes, evidence based on internal structure, evidence based on relations to other variables, and/or evidence based on consequences of testing), and the criterion measures.

Results from other forms of validity analysis not compatible with above table format:

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

No

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Describe the degree to which the provided data support the validity of the tool.

Do you have validity data that are disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, or other subgroups (e.g., English language learners, students with disabilities)?

No

If yes, fill in data for each subgroup with disaggregated validity data.

Results from other forms of validity analysis not compatible with above table format:

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

No

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Bias Analysis

Have you conducted additional analyses related to the extent to which your tool is or is not biased against subgroups (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, students with disabilities, English language learners)? Examples might include Differential Item Functioning (DIF) or invariance testing in multiple-group confirmatory factor models.

Yes

If yes,

a. Describe the method used to determine the presence or absence of bias:

The Winsteps® program was used to investigate Differential Item Functioning (DIF) (Linacre, 2006).

b. Describe the subgroups for which bias analyses were conducted:

DIF analyses were originally conducted in summer 2017 on gender using males as a reference group and females as a focal group, Since that time InSight’s item bias analysis has expanded to include race, ethnicity, English Learner status, and economic disadvantagement in addition to gender. All DIF analyses are conducted for each grade (3-12).

c. Describe the results of the bias analyses conducted, including data and interpretative statements. Include magnitude of effect (if available) if bias has been identified.

The Educational Testing Service (ETS) delta method of categorizing DIF was used to differentiate items with negligible DIF (<.43 logits) from those with moderate DIF (>.43 to <.64 logits) and those with large DIF (>.64 logits) (Zwick, Thayer, & Lewis, 1999). During the previous NCII Academic Screener Call for Submissions, the original DIF analysis from summer 2017 reported well over 90% of the items with negligible DIF and less than 1% of the comprehension items and 2.2% of the vocabulary items showed large DIF. At the time, those items were pulled from the pool for revision. The current edition of InSight does not include any items with large DIF. If an item is flagged for DIF or other validity/reliability issue, it is removed from the item pool, modified, and field tested again. If the item continues to not meet technical standards after multiple field trials, it is retired.